asal

Do you mean easy/easier care? You appear to be arguing that some degree of neglect is OK in this breed. When I had a series of surgeries, my tibbies soon develop significant matted lumps in their leg area & under their ears. Other family members hadn't realised the need for regular coat care. My Swedish-born tibbie with a far denser coat is particularly vulnerable. But, on that occasion, even my less dense Australian-bred tibbie, had nasty, uncomfortable thick lumps... which were the devil to get off. And horrible for her. If someone owns tibetan spaniels, no matter who & how many, if they can't or won't do regular grooming, then they should either keep them entirely clipped... or not own the breed at all. of if they are spotted before you do, and have time to remove them, they should be seized and you publicly shamed prior to the pending trial?????????? What I intensely dislike is this assumption of guilty, public pillaring and shaming before even being charged. Tried sentenced and hung in the public domain first, As I recall someone recently elected to parliament was in the past, jailed for naming and shaming until the magic day he could do it under parliamentary privilege. But then as now Pedephiles are innocent UNTIL proven guilty and still have rights, mistreating a child is so much less serious than a dog, oddly its apparently 70% of the children that kill themselves? The remaining 30% write some heartbreaking impact statments, well, if they speak up that is. Perhaps I may feel better and justice being served if there were the same level of outrage and demands for law change, eg the likes of Cardinal Pell charged with perverting the course of justice. Im listening, cant hear a peep?

https://www.google.c...iw=1920&bih=971 so? Tibetan's don't have short hair on their ears like the breed photos? and that maltese looking thing is actually a Tibetan Spaniel is it? asal it appears that you have misunderstood. mita was not questioning your statement that the dog pictured was neither a Tibetan Spaniel or a Chihuahua. She was quite clearly pointing out that Tibbies could indeed become matted if not cared for, despite the quote about easy care coat that you posted. I think it is important that fallacies or misleading information about our favorite breeds is corrected, don't you? Edited to say I've stuffed up the quotes, sorry but I think most people will sort it out.... no saints forbid, we couldn't have fallacies or misleading information published about our favorite breeds without correction. as for the owner so pilloried? if your stupid enough to attract notice and become publicity fodder tough luck eh? guilty unless by some miracle can prove themselves innocent but no one will get to know that via the same landslide of press though. back pages if at all. Not even the 2 million judgement against them managed front page in the paper I spotted it in. Say's it all about the chances of dog owners ever coming together to defend themselves let alone each other, no one needs to divide them.

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tibetan+spaniel+photos&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT6YTd96TQAhUCVbwKHRi6C5MQsAQIGw&biw=1920&bih=971 so? Tibetan's don't have short hair on their ears like the breed photos? and that maltese looking thing is actually a Tibetan Spaniel is it? You appear to be asking two things. I've already answered the first on behalf of tibbies... that they have hair of sufficient length and density that lack of monitoring and care of coat leads to matting.... & cited the thick lumps that can form under the ears. You provide a list of googled photos that do not show one tibbie ear lifted to reveal the hair at the base. I own tibbies & am part of the tibbie owning community. As to your second question referring to a particular dog as a 'thing. I wasn't speaking to that. Only to your googled quote that confused easy-care, with non-care. that dog in the photo does not have matts under the ears, all the ear is matted, the dog is either one of hers or it is not. it is used to illustrate the deplorable condition of the dogs. As Steve said, if you were arrested for murder, domestic violence, pedophilia or any other crime your name would not be allowed to be made public , that doesn't happen until it gets to court. When its the rspca its a kangaroo court nation wide from day one, if it doesn't go to court there is no press statement to that, just deafening silence. The publicity machine grinds to a sudden and total halt

https://www.google.com.au/search?q=tibetan+spaniel+photos&client=firefox-b&tbm=isch&tbo=u&source=univ&sa=X&ved=0ahUKEwjT6YTd96TQAhUCVbwKHRi6C5MQsAQIGw&biw=1920&bih=971 so? Tibetan's don't have short hair on their ears like the breed photos? and that maltese looking thing is actually a Tibetan Spaniel is it? I dont know the woman either, but over the years have learned to be a little skeptical of the press releases accuracy. The owners of the murry greys they shot were similarly pillioried and they have been awarded some 2 million in damages I think the last press release said. http://www.standard.net.au/story/2475869/rspca-faces-huge-bill-over-framlingham-cattle-cull/ who is going to forget the case of the seized Tibetan Spaniels for the crime of having been shown after being debarked in NSW instead of Victoria under a new law brought in saw their owner facing 80 charges and I think 80 years in jail if awarded the maximum sentence. As I recall the sorry take began when she rehomed one of her champions and its new owner decided get it vet checked, the vet not only called the rspca, but as the dog did not like her, convinced the new owners who had I understand no problems with its temperament to put it down. Yet the standard for the breed states "Characteristics:Gay and assertive, highly intelligent, aloof with strangers." which was exactly what the vet was, a stranger, to have become an Australian champion it had to have passed a temperament test every time it was examined or banned from the ring . despite huge public outrage the rspca wrung their hands and pleaded their hands were tied, she had broken the law. strangely the magistrate dismissed the case, unfortunately not before she had been named and shamed on every public newspaper and tv channel in the country. So, no, I don't assume all that they tell you is true anymore

as pointed out above that kennel bred Chihuahua's and Tibetan Spaniels, THAT is not either breed? so was a generic suitably horror photo used instead? neither chi's or Tibbie could manage a suitably matted coat as said in this link "Small but active and alert, the Tibetan Spaniel dog breed hails from mountainous Tibet, where he served as a companion and watchdog. He’s known for his intelligence, easy-care coat, and his desire to keep watch over his family from high perches in the house. Read more at http://dogtime.com/dog-breeds/tibetan-spaniel#EXZ2FqVsK8VRWgAZ.99 " Bit of an oops there surely? Are the descriptions of the dogs as accurate as the photo? If that photo is all you have made your assumptions from

I have no idea if these petitions really have an impact but gee, look how many have signed. https://www.change.org/p/nsw-national-parks-wildlife-please-help-prevent-the-barbaric-slaughter-of-innocent-brumbies?recruiter=98890400&utm_source=share_petition&utm_medium=facebook&utm_campaign=autopublish&utm_term=mob-xs-share_petition-reason_msg I dont remember seeing any to save our dogs from being legislated out of existence by laws that take no notice they are being formulated as a social experiment with no basis in fact? think I posted it earlier but here it is again anyway. ""RSPCA Victoria CEO Dr Liz Walker today applauded the Victorian Government’s efforts to stamp out puppy and kitten factories, with the introduction of amendments to laws about the commercial breeding of dogs and cats. The amendments will impose a limit of ten female breeding dogs or cats in a Domestic Animal Business by 2020, and require pet stores to only sell registered pound and shelter dogs and cats. “It’s a bold initiative, and that’s what’s needed to bring about change in this industry,” said Dr Walker. “We have seen the squalid conditions in the mass production of dogs and cats time and again, and it has to stop. “This legislation provides the starting point for a great step forward in animal welfare. “By 2020, we hope that breeding facilities with hundreds of dogs and cats in putrid conditions will be a thing of the past. “These changes will also mean breeding dogs should be healthier and easier for breeders to rehome, because it’s easier to provide some basic socialisation and exposure to a normal life when smaller numbers of animals are involved,” she said. Dr Walker said RSPCA Victoria would welcome further investigation and research around the relationship between numbers of animals and welfare outcomes. “No jurisdiction in the world has had the courage to set a low limit on the number of animals kept by breeders, so research into the link between animal numbers and welfare outcomes is limited,” Dr Walker said. “Setting a limit will allow us to start benchmarking welfare outcomes in Victoria.” AND when it discovers its a fail will it be repealed? or stay as law just as I believe their equally stupid ban on showing a debarked dog, IF it was owned by a victorian and debarked in another state THAT IS. any other debarked dogs can be shown legally and their owner not prosecuted. if that is not insane what is?

as I recall, it was proven the greyhound breeder used as the example of drowning his puppies was in fact an american breeder, living in america and still in america and the footage was ten years old. yet included in the investigation of new south wales greyhound industry? Yet maddy is still quoting it but it made good press, certainly gave it the shock, disgust factor wanted and needed, which I think was the purpose and certainly accomplished

Didn't it cost the owners of the murry grey stud cattle shot, over half a million? They did win but I don't think the losers have coughed up the damages awarded yet

Finally, the figures of why puppy farms and breeders need to be stopped contributing to the influx of dogs into their kennels. 287 less dogs would have needed to be rehomed. "Last year, RSPCA Victoria rehomed 4200 dogs of all breeds, shapes and sizes from our 11 animal care centres across Victoria, and GRV needs to be realistic about the market for rehoming greyhounds in Victoria. Around 7.9% (287) of the dogs and cats surrendered last financial year came from breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry." Would it then stand to reason that 7.9% of the dogs euthanised would have also came from "breeders or those involved in the greyhound racing industry." Now I begin to understand why it is believed this 7.9% which can be eliminated or reduced as much as possible , since they are traceable needs to be done, don't you think? Quoted from link from this thread. http://www.dolforums.com.au/topic/267866-rspca-victoria-seeking-information/ "RSPCA Victoria CEO Dr Liz Walker today applauded the Victorian Government’s efforts to stamp out puppy and kitten factories, with the introduction of amendments to laws about the commercial breeding of dogs and cats. The amendments will impose a limit of ten female breeding dogs or cats in a Domestic Animal Business by 2020, and require pet stores to only sell registered pound and shelter dogs and cats. “It’s a bold initiative, and that’s what’s needed to bring about change in this industry,” said Dr Walker. “We have seen the squalid conditions in the mass production of dogs and cats time and again, and it has to stop. “This legislation provides the starting point for a great step forward in animal welfare. “By 2020, we hope that breeding facilities with hundreds of dogs and cats in putrid conditions will be a thing of the past. “These changes will also mean breeding dogs should be healthier and easier for breeders to rehome, because it’s easier to provide some basic socialisation and exposure to a normal life when smaller numbers of animals are involved,” she said. Dr Walker said RSPCA Victoria would welcome further investigation and research around the relationship between numbers of animals and welfare outcomes. “No jurisdiction in the world has had the courage to set a low limit on the number of animals kept by breeders, so research into the link between animal numbers and welfare outcomes is limited,” Dr Walker said. “Setting a limit will allow us to start benchmarking welfare outcomes in Victoria.” RSPCA Victoria is keen to partner with Government and the companion animal industry – including breeders – to educate the community about how to find pets that have been bred in the best possible conditions. The Smart Puppy and Dog Buyers Guide provides useful information for people wanting to purchase a puppy. “Put simply, potential pet owners should visit the place where the puppy was born; meet the mother dog (and father too if he’s around) to make sure they’re happy and healthy; and check the breeder provides a high standard of care and living conditions for all of their dogs." What a nice happy feel good press release to be found below the first quote I copied if you get to it. What happened to breeders have to have been inspected and pass before they can breed? now every joe public can demand access? no mention of the dangers of letting anyone who could have been in contact with kennel cough, parvo or distemper having to be allowed to inspect your dogs and property to ascertain if they pass muster though. Even though the mother is vaccinated the puppies can still catch all or any prior to being old enough to vaccinate. A breeder should have the right to say no when puppies are very young, but hey how would anyone know that from reading the above?

the figures a pretty horrific arent they "In the past financial year, RSPCA Victoria investigated 1,345 reports of animal cruelty relating to beating, wounding and tormenting." We really need laws to ban anyone from owning a dog if they don't turn in these people immediately. They must know , to remain silent they too are complicent.

Try telling that to the fur people brigade, I still remember the woman who demanded of me, how can you do that to your fur child, would you sell your own daughters babies? This is the mentality of the AR trained.

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA. In my experience, many are like teenage girls in that they like to gossip. One person falls out with another, they have a good bitch to anyone who'll listen. There are cliques and certain people go in and out of fashion. In small states like Tasmania, everyone knows everyone elses' business. In places like NSW, I suppose it'd be more of a regional thing, not that it makes a great deal of difference. You're also assuming that those doing the wrong thing are actually going to some sort of effort to hide it and again, from my experience, that's not really true. I've had trainers admit to me that baiting happened on their property (not by them, of course, but a mysterious "someone"). I know of trainers who go through huge numbers of dogs and it's no secret. Then there are the things that happen that aren't against any rule but the public would likely not be comfortable with- dogs being destroyed at the track because of relatively minor injuries (in terms of their health) that are likely to mean they'll never race successfully again. People breeding several litters out of one bitch in the hopes of getting that elusive big winner, etc, etc. Maybe a few very sheltered trainers could claim ignorance of what goes on but they'd be a tiny minority. What remains and those who do the wrong thing and those who watch the wrong thing happen. This is not saying they are the same- but those who stand by and do nothing cannot complain when the sport does eventually get taken away from them. Regarding the second part of my post, you could not be more incorrect. In no way was I suggesting self management because that is what is already in place and already very obviously failing. What I was saying was that participants need to take some responsibility, instead of claiming that because it was not them, they shouldn't have to worry about it. This is like witnessing a murder and instead of calling the police, shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Well, I didn't murder anyone so it's not my business and not my problem." It seems obvious to me that if the industry is under threat because of a systemic issue, then all parties concerned should be looking at how to solve the problem. Instead, they're just trying to sweep it back under the rug. I knew you were not suggesting self management and I knew you were saying exactly the opposite and I was agreeing with you. I'm sorry but I refuse to accept that every person who was not doing the wrong thing is responsible for what was going on with others.I will not accept that everyone in a group should be judged by the actions of a few. If its more than a feww then where are they and why havent they been charged in huge numbers? I also refuse to accept that this new thing we seem to be calling the community and changing public opinion is about what the vast majority of people think and feel and not a noisy minority who have made it difficult for anyone who doesn't agree to say so in fear of not being politically correct and they will be beaten up and judged to be a bad person because they happen to have a different opinion. its like the emperors new clothes. admire them or be seen to be a fool. even though you know he is naked. or in the case of punish the innocent because they didnt dob in the guilty . who cares they didn't know who were guilty. same scene, just different angle

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA. Think that now if you are to be a "good" anyone you need to spy on all and report or you too will be tried and convicted, if you fail to find out first and report then the same penalty applies, no such thing as innocent of anything with this new age dawning. It does remind me of the stories of why my grandfathers ancestors who fled Spain during the inquisition, if you failed to report anyone and regularly, then you yourself risked arrest and torture because to have remained silent when the nation needed to be purged meant you were trying to hide you were a heretic. good old history, always seem to repeat itself although the guises seem different the workings seem to repeat for some weird reason? Heretic, puppy farmer, hasnt the same ring to it, at least they dont get the rack now just public humiliation and disgust, who cares if a percentage are innocent?

Sorry I should have said I wasn't referring to the comments on social media, but to emails I have received regarding the strategies that were/had been used in the 'fight' to oppose the ban. Most of the time when I mentioned the changes in this thread regarding the 50%reduction of dogs being bred, the rules regarding the transparency regarding the fate of the dogs was being used as an example of the fact that the industry could change, but as WM says achieving this in only 12 mths is not fast enough for the general public. The reforms I mentioned that had been taken off the table were only proposed reforms not actual reforms, pity they weren't made to uphold them before Baird changed his mind. I do understand this and while I also have had similar experiences to those that you have mentioned I also have friends at this moment who have as many dogs in their kennels waiting to go into GAP as you mentioned that you have rescued in 10 yrs. Some of them have been there over 12 mths and the 4 they have kept pets, I have shared a couch with and they have done this for many years, it's these people who have a passion for their hobby but above all a love of dogs that I feel for and my friends aren't the only ones that I know of. The purebred breeders are feeling annoyed that the powers that be feel they need to pay for their hobby, this is how my friends feel plus the whole country believes just because they have a hobby that's been ruined, they are scumbags like the participants that everyone hears about and have judged them without knowing them. Ultimately, remaining silent is condoning the behaviour of those doing the wrong thing. If enough of the good trainers were willing to come forward, name names, be honest about what goes on, maybe the scum could be cleaned away and things could change. But they don't. In doing nothing, they've made a choice. Back when I was stuck running GAP down here (a short, horrible period that I'd rather forget), I was made to sign an agreement stating that I would never say anything to anyone that would bring the sport into disrepute. This included speaking to the media (besides statements approved by them), it also included not reporting things I'd seen to the RSPCA. A similar clause exists under GAR. A rule that basically prohibits anyone from speaking out if it might damage the image of the sport. A lot of the AR nuts like to grasp at some of the much less common issues while right there, in front of their noses, is the industry enforcing corruption and a culture of secrecy, in a way that can be proven without any effort at all. Go figure. But that assumes that the good trainers even know what they get up to and what they were doing and from what Im hearing thats just not true. Its hardly something that is advertised and chatted about to anyone who they dont trust. You place EVERYONE who wants to own and train greys in the same basket .They are either animal abusers or they are complicent in it without consideration for how many did really know enough to be able to report it. The second part of your post is about self management and self policing which is always open to corruption and bias and why Vicdogs would be better to advocate for reasonable conditions for everyone who wants to breed dogs rather than sit back and help stick it to everyone else and bathe in the glow that their exemptions won't be removed and they don't become just like the riff raff who choose not to be their members. It attracts dead beats who only join for the exemptions and sets them up for failure sooner rather than later and always makes them a shinier target and open to accusations of corruption,secrecy and bias for AR loonies. If you are going to expect enforcement you have to have a third party arms length party that can accept complaints and have nothing to gain by hushing things up and that includes the RSPCA. In my experience, many are like teenage girls in that they like to gossip. One person falls out with another, they have a good bitch to anyone who'll listen. There are cliques and certain people go in and out of fashion. In small states like Tasmania, everyone knows everyone elses' business. In places like NSW, I suppose it'd be more of a regional thing, not that it makes a great deal of difference. You're also assuming that those doing the wrong thing are actually going to some sort of effort to hide it and again, from my experience, that's not really true. I've had trainers admit to me that baiting happened on their property (not by them, of course, but a mysterious "someone"). I know of trainers who go through huge numbers of dogs and it's no secret. Then there are the things that happen that aren't against any rule but the public would likely not be comfortable with- dogs being destroyed at the track because of relatively minor injuries (in terms of their health) that are likely to mean they'll never race successfully again. People breeding several litters out of one bitch in the hopes of getting that elusive big winner, etc, etc. Maybe a few very sheltered trainers could claim ignorance of what goes on but they'd be a tiny minority. What remains and those who do the wrong thing and those who watch the wrong thing happen. This is not saying they are the same- but those who stand by and do nothing cannot complain when the sport does eventually get taken away from them. Regarding the second part of my post, you could not be more incorrect. In no way was I suggesting self management because that is what is already in place and already very obviously failing. What I was saying was that participants need to take some responsibility, instead of claiming that because it was not them, they shouldn't have to worry about it. This is like witnessing a murder and instead of calling the police, shrugging your shoulders and saying, "Well, I didn't murder anyone so it's not my business and not my problem." It seems obvious to me that if the industry is under threat because of a systemic issue, then all parties concerned should be looking at how to solve the problem. Instead, they're just trying to sweep it back under the rug. Steve the "experience" of this person far exceeds anyone on this forum, think its a waste of time having someone like this focusing on just dog owners. This the the kind of lawmakers we need, then once all have been jailed and taken care of there will never be any more cases involving pedophiles, rapists, robbers, domestic violence or any other form of innocents abuse. everyone will be jailed because if you didn't stop it your just as guilty even if you didn't even know what was happening next door or out of your sight or hearing let alone what happened. This is the future

Not sure how big she is / will be. having seen dozens and dozens of kelpie x border x coolie pups I have never seen one resembling them. and there are some lovely cream kelpies and borders. the head just isnt right and if no one remembers all three, kelpie, border and coolie, have a neck ruff, on the border and the coolie, in addition they have ruffs down the back of the legs and long tail hair. the kelpie has a shorter body coat but the border and the coolie have LONG COATS on the body .Those puppies are smooth coat with no neck ruff or leg ruffs? ok this pup is chocolate but see the ruff that runs down from the ears even in a baby as young as this which is a fair bit younger than the first photo of the gold puppy Hey found a photo of a gold smoothcoat Coolie, only ever seen the longcoat ones. https://blog.pawedin.com/app/uploads/2015/12/koolie-laying-down-in-the-grass.jpg

No they weren't, the emphasis was on livelihoods and the misinformation in the inquiry, the reforms that have been implemented were only a very small part of it. I do know what you are saying is true re whistleblowers that is why if the law outside the industry was on their side they would have had more power to be listened to as I said before. I know you have had dealings with scum just as I have but they are not the only ones in this industry but they are the only ones that are worth giving anecdotal credence to as the good stuff is uninteresting. If you look back through this thread, there were people involved in the industry claiming that a lot of reform has happened and that, in itself, was a reason not to support a ban. And outside of this forum, on many of the FB racing groups, the same thing was being argued. Not that any of it matters now, of course. The industry will bully and whine their way out of any of the proposed reforms and nothing will change. As for people only paying attention to the bad stuff.. maybe part of that is because it outweighs a lot of the good when you're on the disposals end of the business. Last weekend, for the first time in the roughly ten years I have been rescuing greyhounds, a trainer agreed to take back a dog that wasn't suitable for rehoming. The first time. In ten years. The other 99.9% of the time, I get told that if I "won't keep the dog myself" (trying to make me feel guilty for not keeping every dog who fails) that I should take it to a vet to be PTS. My experience with the industry has been overwhelmingly negative. Some trainers are kind enough to let me take the dogs they no longer want, but many will not if it inconveniences them by so much as having to keep the dog for one day longer than they want to. For a very long time, I defended the industry for the sake of the breed but I'm done. I won't be quiet while people like asal obfuscate the discussion with garbage about secret agendas and the RSPCA and immigrants and wars, trying to distract people away from the facts- ironically, to suit the agenda that they have. I love the breed and I don't want to see it disappear but I can't support what I know to be wrong. good post until you mentioned secret agenda's, its not secret. the only agenda as you put it was AR is not about animal rights its about eliminating domestic animals, even the victorian govt has finally noticed that the rspca is no longer animal welfare focused,I saw the letter In Jacki Kelly's office in Penrith, sent to a member of her staff, the staff member showed it to me personally in 2000 extorting her to get her family and friends to join and vote as PETA was attempting to infiltrate and take over. Considering the change in direction since the coup has been accomplished. But hey whatever floats your boat. no one is listening to you or me. there are bad people , there are good people and millions in between. the majority go with whatever flow is passing with no thought to the future or what it means You have admitted that you don't actually know shit about what goes on in the industry. Unlike you, my opinion of the industry is formed from knowledge and experience. I am not an AR supporter, I live 27km away from a pit filled with hundreds of dead greyhounds that the industry regulators are well aware of. God only knows how many greyhounds, all from one trainer. So yeah, tell me again about how my feelings about the industry are just buying into AR propaganda. You're making assumptions there. I understand perfectly well why the industry does what it does. There is no great mystery to it. Desperately trying to pretend that those of us who feel that the current industry needs to be completely dismantled are somehow ignorant of the causes or possible fixes of the issue is almost as absurd as the arguments that equate greyhound trainers with refugees. If you think people who use small animals to bait dogs, or people who will euthanase 30% of a litter without a second thought, are deserving of even more chances to continue as they are, then I think we'll have to agree to disagree on what is/isn't acceptable for the welfare of the dogs. Way to represent ANKC breeders, btw- as essentially supportive of an industry that is rife with massive welfare issues, just to protect their own arses. Nice work. reply and quote what I did say, and dismiss anything I have if you like. but the red is not said by me. I think to be fair attribute it to who did say it when you reply surely

No they weren't, the emphasis was on livelihoods and the misinformation in the inquiry, the reforms that have been implemented were only a very small part of it. I do know what you are saying is true re whistleblowers that is why if the law outside the industry was on their side they would have had more power to be listened to as I said before. I know you have had dealings with scum just as I have but they are not the only ones in this industry but they are the only ones that are worth giving anecdotal credence to as the good stuff is uninteresting. If you look back through this thread, there were people involved in the industry claiming that a lot of reform has happened and that, in itself, was a reason not to support a ban. And outside of this forum, on many of the FB racing groups, the same thing was being argued. Not that any of it matters now, of course. The industry will bully and whine their way out of any of the proposed reforms and nothing will change. As for people only paying attention to the bad stuff.. maybe part of that is because it outweighs a lot of the good when you're on the disposals end of the business. Last weekend, for the first time in the roughly ten years I have been rescuing greyhounds, a trainer agreed to take back a dog that wasn't suitable for rehoming. The first time. In ten years. The other 99.9% of the time, I get told that if I "won't keep the dog myself" (trying to make me feel guilty for not keeping every dog who fails) that I should take it to a vet to be PTS. My experience with the industry has been overwhelmingly negative. Some trainers are kind enough to let me take the dogs they no longer want, but many will not if it inconveniences them by so much as having to keep the dog for one day longer than they want to. For a very long time, I defended the industry for the sake of the breed but I'm done. I won't be quiet while people like asal obfuscate the discussion with garbage about secret agendas and the RSPCA and immigrants and wars, trying to distract people away from the facts- ironically, to suit the agenda that they have. I love the breed and I don't want to see it disappear but I can't support what I know to be wrong. good post until you mentioned secret agenda's, its not secret. the only agenda as you put it was AR is not about animal rights its about eliminating domestic animals, even the victorian govt has finally noticed that the rspca is no longer animal welfare focused,I saw the letter In Jacki Kelly's office in Penrith, sent to a member of her staff, the staff member showed it to me personally in 2000 extorting her to get her family and friends to join and vote as PETA was attempting to infiltrate and take over. Considering the change in direction since the coup has been accomplished. But hey whatever floats your boat. no one is listening to you or me. there are bad people , there are good people and millions in between. the majority go with whatever flow is passing with no thought to the future or what it means

Maddy, animal rights have one agenda, no pets. many pure bred breeders are happy to join the get rid of backyarders and that includes adding to the witch hunt any pure bred member of their group who doesn't march to their beat of the drum. as for the millions of backyarders with lovely dogs be they x bred or unpapered purebreds all this legislation isn't going to find them anyway. once the dust settles it is the ankc's will have some decisions to make. open to studbooks to find outside blood due to too few left like happened with the stumpy tailed cattledogs. The untapped gene pool is where the species is going to survive. I do not know any grey hound breeders or racers, I do know some friends whose family members who have a brothers or their dads retired racer gracing their lounge and lives though. such elegant and loving dogs although there doesn't tend to be much room left on a lounge for the human though once those graceful limbs are at full stretch in the gods reclining position

"DOGS Victoria Members - THIS BILL WILL IMPACT YOU Domestic Animals Amendment (Puppy Farm and Pet Shops) Bill 2016 Even if you only have one entire female, and you want to breed, this legislation will affect you. It will mean you must have a DAB issued from your council. If you do not, and you breed and sell your puppies, you will be breaking the law, with hefty fines as a penalty. The consequences are even higher for those with over five dogs, with provisions to build concrete kennels and a strict code you’ll need to follow – and this will be law. Make no mistake you must abide by it or face serious repercussions, including fines and even jail sentences. This Bill affects every single DOGS Victoria member, if you breed or not, it will reduce our ability to continue producing healthy, well socialised purebred puppies. Our dog spots, our shows our hobby will be destroyed. We need your help to spread the message that this Bill is wrong and must be amended. We do not support puppy farms, backyard or commercial breeders, so let’s spread the word that this Bill needs to get it right, first time, so it can target those that are doing the wrong thing. The power is in our numbers. Please support us in getting the word out that ethical, registered DOGS Victoria breeders should not be included in this one-size-fits-all legislation. This is what you can do:" The idiots still dont get it. they are still backing the bill, just they want it to destroy "puppy farms, backyard or commercial breeders" there is no way any bill is not going to target anyone it can identify. EVERY one who does not live in a high rise but a home with a backyard, has fertile female is by that very definition a "backyard breeder", registered with anyone or not. one goes you all go, will they never GET THAT???

sarcasm alert perhaps, interesting, so they wont have to register as a business, get council permit, get an abn or the 10 million insurance? and allowed to keep their retired dogs? perhaps everyone should call their dogs greyhounds and race them, even if its only once in their lifetime? Well there are still council approvals required - an article on the paper about a council kicking a Greyhound breeder out. A Local Laws issue rather than a welfare issue by the sounds of it. does anyone here honestly think many councils will permit the owner of even one female to register their suburban home as an animal rearing BUSINESS? At a guess this will eliminate 90% if not more of people who live in the suburbs and as Telstra so loves to remind us, their coverage is of 98% of australians. What they dont mention is 90% live in the burbs and the city. Only 8% of those in the country can get reception. many only if they stand on one foot, with their tongue hanging out to the left AND on the highest corner of the property nearest to a tower. We have a property in Gilgandra and there is only one spot where there is reception and its not in the house so tough luck if its raining and u want to make a mobile call. where is the 90% who own pets and are breeders? It isnt the country is it? I recall when the then NSWCC did a survey and discovered something like 80% of long time members and the backbone of the registry were the over 60's and prodominatly pensioners. eliminate that demographic and its endangered species listing if it isnt nearing that already for some The government have suggested in emails to Dogs Vic members that the problem is in calling it a "business" so now they are offering to change the name to a breeder permit. Ah yes, that will flush out all the people that never advertise or sell on social media. I doubt it will "flush" even one, but eliminating a high percentage of the members of Dogs Vic is certainly on the cards

sarcasm alert perhaps, interesting, so they wont have to register as a business, get council permit, get an abn or the 10 million insurance? and allowed to keep their retired dogs? perhaps everyone should call their dogs greyhounds and race them, even if its only once in their lifetime? Well there are still council approvals required - an article on the paper about a council kicking a Greyhound breeder out. A Local Laws issue rather than a welfare issue by the sounds of it. does anyone here honestly think many councils will permit the owner of even one female to register their suburban home as an animal rearing BUSINESS? At a guess this will eliminate 90% if not more of people who live in the suburbs and as Telstra so loves to remind us, their coverage is of 98% of australians. What they dont mention is 90% live in the burbs and the city. Only 8% of those in the country can get reception. many only if they stand on one foot, with their tongue hanging out to the left AND on the highest corner of the property nearest to a tower. We have a property in Gilgandra and there is only one spot where there is reception and its not in the house so tough luck if its raining and u want to make a mobile call. where is the 90% who own pets and are breeders? It isnt the country is it? I recall when the then NSWCC did a survey and discovered something like 80% of long time members and the backbone of the registry were the over 60's and prodominatly pensioners. eliminate that demographic and its endangered species listing if it isnt nearing that already for some

sarcasm alert perhaps, interesting, so they wont have to register as a business, get council permit, get an abn or the 10 million insurance? and allowed to keep their retired dogs? perhaps everyone should call their dogs greyhounds and race them, even if its only once in their lifetime?

Are we talking about greyhounds here or dogs in general? Because this discussion is specifically about greyhound racing and that really narrows down the people involved. The vast majority of participants are involved to make money. If money was not the reason for their involvement, dogs wouldn't be discarded like used tissues. If they were truly in it for the love of the dogs, they wouldn't be shooting the dogs, dumping the dogs, overbeeding the dogs to the point that rehoming them all becomes impossible. If it was "just a hobby", they sure as hell wouldn't be dropping $10k on a pup or constantly looking for ways to illicitly gain an advantage. I'm starting to think that if you're so cool with the industry, maybe YOU should try cleaning up after them. Put your money where your mouth is- you seem to think nothing much is wrong so if that's the case, becoming a greyhound rescuer should be easy work, right? I do understand the likelyhood of what I say below will make no sense to you. perhaps better minds can explain what I am trying to get across with better words and explanation. Ok if joe public can’t be responsible we need laws to force this, we need rules to make Joe public feel if they do not toe the ethical line they have forfeited the right to decide for themselves, particularly in the case of the rights of the animals they keep. Joe public if they buy an animal be it a companion animal like a dog, a cat, a bird.... whatever fits that description. If they buy a horse or a pony, even if they breed it, to be a responsible Joe public, once they have that animal they and they alone are responsible for its well being and care for the life of that animal. If their circumstances change and unable to keep it, to sell is selfish and not thinking of the best interests of the animal they had undertaken the life care of. If that animal develops health or mental problems, Joe public can’t decide to either rehome it or euthanize it, That is shirking the responsibility the purchase had promised that animal for its natural life. In the case of a horse that can be for 30 years or more, no more reselling to someone else to enjoy instead, or if health or temperament issues arise no having it put down or sold for slaughter if they no longer have the will or the interest or the facilities to keep it. Same for any other species of animal, dog cat or whatever. YET. How many tens of thousands of animals of every domestic species is “euthanized” be it by bullet or injection, every year, not only for age, health and let’s not forget the infamous temperament test failure by the very organisation that is leading the charge to have Joe public held accountable, shame able and chargeable for deciding to exercise their (so they thought) legal right to dispose of or euthanize their purchase or bred? For the very same reasons the organisation that is demanding they have no such rights? Does to any animal they take control of? The majority ARE KILLED. Steve Coleman said on National media 70% of all greyhounds are culled because they either fail the temperament tests or homes are not available. Yet the owners who have not sent their dogs to his organisation should have them taken because they cannot be trusted to rehome them responsibly, they forfeited their right because of the numbers he can proved have been put down by their owners, yet he intends killing an even higher percentage but the sheeple don’t read the real figures and ask what is going on here. Notice the headlines of the thousands of greyhounds killed not per year, the figure per year wasn’t shocking enough, what was it 5 year total ? 12 year total. Joe public doesn’t read all the press release just skims and spots the huge cruel figure. The was it 70 or 170 bodies found in a grave on a property, their owner is by law has the right to put down their animals if they so choose as long as it is done humanely, I can remember the headlines many of the dogs had been shot, in country areas that is considered humane, gee you can see special Constable Ashton shooting cattle as they are chased through a gate and being shot twice and three times before they died yet it is called “euthanasia” yet abattoirs’ have been shut down for less, right now an abattoir is being threatened with prosecution because one hit of the captive bolt did not render SOME stock instantly unconscious and it was captured on video. A rifle shot into a running bovine is NOT euthanasia if you did it, how can it be relabelled as such when Ashton does it? There is photographs to support he did so, on more than one occasion, in one video a member of staff resigned on the video rather than be involved in the coming slaughter, yet no prosecution has ever been contemplated When, if ever are the sheeple going to wake up the very organisation wanting to control all animal rights in this country and the people who own them do exactly what they say is why the sheeple should have their rights to decide their animals welfare be taken away from them? But the AR mob know they are on to a good thing educating and training sheeple, get the numbers right, the headlines right and sheeple don’t read the details in between. Ask any breeder who has put an add with the colour, sex, price, date of pickup, vet checked, vaccinated, wormed, chipped and dna tested litter and what are the very questions the majority of callers ask? You don’t need two guesses , just repeat after me what is above. Some get annoyed and suggest perhaps they read the add. Doesn’t pay to get annoyed, they are doing what AR know. The majority of people don’t read what’s there, they skim. See the bit that catches their attention and remember that and that only. Don’t forget if the new laws being pushed for in Victoria get through a breeder, EVERY breeder greyhounds included, is denied the right to keep their retired breeding dog or dogs, they must choose to either rehome or euthanize it? And what is one of the prime crimes of a puppy farmer? They don’t keep their breeding dogs after they are retired, yet this mob want that right removed from anyone owning an entire female used for breeding? Wake up sheeple!

Are we talking about greyhounds here or dogs in general? Because this discussion is specifically about greyhound racing and that really narrows down the people involved. The vast majority of participants are involved to make money. If money was not the reason for their involvement, dogs wouldn't be discarded like used tissues. If they were truly in it for the love of the dogs, they wouldn't be shooting the dogs, dumping the dogs, overbeeding the dogs to the point that rehoming them all becomes impossible. If it was "just a hobby", they sure as hell wouldn't be dropping $10k on a pup or constantly looking for ways to illicitly gain an advantage. I'm starting to think that if you're so cool with the industry, maybe YOU should try cleaning up after them. Put your money where your mouth is- you seem to think nothing much is wrong so if that's the case, becoming a greyhound rescuer should be easy work, right? in case you havent noticed the war is going on in other fronts, greyhounds was almost a winner, victory may have been postponed for a while but still ongoing, those neat little laws hopefully passed in victoria will be shoved forward for all states it will effectively shut down all as will the greyhound agenda. do you really think this isnt all linked? If you haven't noticed, the neddys are in the sights too

So are you saying that the short sharp version closed the organisations down completely or they went OS, or was it that the participants just had to change their culture, no compromises, so the industry could survive? The latter m-j usually - it usually involves rapid down-sizing and sophisticated management of change and people - and that so ain't going to happen here. Management by attrition usually takes a long time, and while it works in some situations I doubt it will work here given the public and political pressure. So yes - I have seen absolutely nothing here to suggest that genuine sustainainble change will happen so this industry will survive in a form that is acceptable to the general public. In fact this decision has probably ensured the slow 'death by a thousand cuts' for this industry, unless it happens again. And yes I'm certain it will all happen again and next time it will be a brutal shutdown. Look the truth is that the days of using animals for gambling and entertainment are severely numbered - its only a matter of time given its a toxic mix that brings out the worst in human beings. So this industry can evolve to shutdown under its own control or have it done to it eventually. They can take their pick which route they take - but they are going to end up in the same place. Bookmark it. Thank you for your reply. As I have said before you are probably right except it will be a pity for the good folk in the industry and they do exist and they have complained but it has fallen on deaf ears. The entertainment and gambling factor of the industry are not to blame for this it is the "win at all cost" mentality. Unfortunately it isn't only in the greyhounds it is across the board in all sports, it is why human athletes get drug tested and are being found positive. Gone are the days when sport was just that sport, now it is business, pity. One example of this is country football/cricket they are paying players from other places to play for them so now the kids that don't make the grade instead of being at the footy or the cricket on Saturday they are entertaining themselves in other ways and not all of them are wholesome. Generally m-j I think we are in agreement - I just don't believe so much in 'the good people' - not one public whistle blower I'm aware of in all the years of greyhound racing? But anyway, yes it is a pity that what might have been a good clean fun hobby has now become 'business' - and when it involves animals you can absolutely bet that greed will overrule any sense of animal welfare and decrease our collective humanity. I think this is why I'm so angry with this industry - as it not only reflects on them, it reflects on all of us. And I wonder if the huge outcry over greyhounds is because they are closer to us than, say horses. The are a companion animal species who live in our homes - and while some people have horses as well most of us don't. So it hits hard. And yes absolutely agree - the moment sport becomes 'business' it moves to a different plane. I'm a great AFL supporter - and sooooo angry with Essendon for the disrepute that they have brought to the game through their 'whatever it takes' 'supplements' program. They are a case study for everything m_j talks about. I've seriously considered going back to supporting grass roots footie through the SANFL - and I might still. And no I won't be watching or betting on 'the race that stops the nation' either. They are out there :) the vet that went onto the ABC show (there is a link at the beginning of this thread) is one example and look what it achieved, nothing. There are many people out there that could tell stories and some have but it got them nowhere. It seems that a certain few of the industry appear to have it sown up so this is why I was hoping legislation would sort it out. I'm not going to hold my breath though the GBOTA put reforms on the table I'm guessing to enhance their chance of keeping the industry and some of those reforms got taken off 3-4 days after the ban was lifted, which really peeved me, same ..... different day. I just hope when the next push to close it comes there will be more thought put into what is going to happen to the dogs. Can you honestly say you were surprised by this? I don't want to see the breed disappear through the complete banning of racing but it seems like the arrogance of those involved is just.. incredible. As soon as they believed they had won, it was back to business as usual. Apparently they'd already reformed enough and everything is fine. A greyhound trainer in Sydney was charged with live baiting the day before the ban was lifted but that's okay because reform, reviews, some paid "research", a liberal application of smoke and mirrors and.. everything is fine. The public can stop looking now, back to business. The arrogance of some is incredible. the question is, do you destroy all? including the 80% the report said are the honest, the caring in the quest to destroy the arrogant? In war it is called "collateral damage" there are a few million survivors of that fleeing that horror and the loss of their homes and way of life, according to the news, many are drowning in the attempt. those to have tried it to get to australia are locked up for longer sentences than pedophiles, rapists and murderers. now add those who have pets for whatever purpose to eliminate the arrogant Sure, allow me to rephrase that: Those with the power to make changes are incredibly arrogant. NSW has proven that it's not an issue of just a few "bad eggs", it's a systemic problem that starts at the top and is pervasive, throughout the industry. Comparing it to war is absurd. Absolutely absurd. Bringing up asylum seekers is equally absurd because it has NOTHING to do with the issue and it is, frankly, an attempt to purposely distract the discussion off onto entirely unrelated subjects (while pointedly ignoring some very important points). But if we're going to use analogies, let me offer you one that actually makes some sense in relation to the discussion: Let's imagine that your dog has cancer. Maybe it started in the bones or lymph nodes, it doesn't really matter too much, all that matters is your dog has cancer and that cancer has spread to many different organs. The organs might not be riddled with cancer but it's there and it damages their normal function and impacts negatively on the dog's welfare. Different treatments for the cancer were tried and although they might have killed a bit of cancer here and there, the cancer is still in every part of your dog. Your dog is in pain, your dog's days are numbered, every other avenue has been tried and has failed. And that only leaves one last option. That option is obviously not ideal but unfortunately, it is inevitable. No offense but we're not talking about minor things like failing to obey leash laws. There is a slight difference between walking your dog off lead and strapping a live animal to a lure arm and allowing dogs to slowly tear it to pieces. I'm not sure how this is confusing for some people? I see the angle you are coming from but to compare the incredibly diverse people who have dogs for equally diverse reasons to being the body of a single dog with cancer that the whole dog has to die because you cant separate the cancer from the dog as an analogy that all dog owners have to be eliminated to get rid of the cancer is just as ingenuious as you accuse me of in comparing the problem with a war. This is a war, ask any AR campaigner, they think this war is in its final stages, is almost won.